Monday, June 10, 2013

Suman Sahai

3rd
June, 2013

It is time to stop
discounting traditional expertise and make use of this vast and valuable
resource, argues Indian scientist Suman Sahai.

Science and technology have always been an important part of
growth and development plans. But accepted 'scientific expertise' is Western,
standardised and homogenous. From this viewpoint, the vast body of scientific
expertise developed in diverse societies and cultures is discounted and
ignored.

Referred to as indigenous
or traditional knowledge, this is a knowledge system distilled from
generations of scientific work anchored in rural and tribal communities. It is
different to the Western system of empirical, lab-based science — but is
equally valid and efficacious.

It is time to recognise that there are different kinds of
sciences and scientific expertise, and that all of them should be used for
development and problem-solving.

SPEED READ

Indigenous knowledge has been fine-tuned over millennia, but developing countries ignore it

It is myopic to rely on just one form of scientific expertise

China and India are leading the way by supporting both traditional and Western medicine

The Knowledge that evolved

Indigenous knowledge has developed from understanding and
documenting the processes in nature. An iteration of practices over time has
led to products and processes that are based on sound scientific principles.

Take plant extracts for example. Observing that animals did not eat certain
plants and assuming that this was because they were toxic, communities took
extracts and tested them for a range of uses. Many were, and still are, used as
pesticides in agriculture, in bait to catch fish or to treat maggot
infestations in livestock.

Because plants differ across ecological zones, each region has developed
products and uses based on their regional flora. Indigenous science is diverse,
and it is efficacious in the particular context in which it is used.

Similarly, in indigenous
medicine, the plants used in traditional Chinese medicine will be different
to those used in India, Indonesia or Myanmar — but all these healing systems
will cure many diseases effectively. Even today, almost 80 per cent of the
population of some Asian and African countries rely on indigenous systems for
primary healthcare. [1]

Indigenous knowledge is not a panacea, but it offers as valid a route for
treatment as any other. Just as Western medicine cannot cure a common cold or
many chronicdiseases,
traditional medicines may not be as effective as antibiotics in rapidly
controlling infections.

But it has some advantages. Antibiotics lead to side effects (which could range
from allergies and rashes to more serious effects like toxicity) and bacteria
can ultimately become resistant to
them; traditional healing is more broad-based and holistic, designed as much to
prevent disease as to cure it.

Practical approach to problem-solving

Indigenous knowledge includes knowledge accumulated over thousands of
years, making it particularly useful for problem-solving. Communities have
vetted solutions and knowledge systems over time, retaining only the
efficacious ones.

When the December 2004 tsunami
struck the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India, it was feared that local
tribal communities would have perished. But this was not the case: they had
correctly read the signs of an impending tsunami and retreated to high ground.
[2]

In foodproduction,
the hallmarks of traditional science include knowledge of genetic diversity,
the suitability of crop varieties to different land and soil types, and the use
of agronomic practices to minimise risk of crop losses. There are various
options available for growing food under almost any agro-ecological condition.

It is a pity that this knowledge is rarelyused. Instead, most research
establishments support the dominant system of food production that involves
resource-intensive agriculture, which may work for well-off farmers on large
farms, but comes at a huge ecological cost.

If rural and tribal communities in India have developed and conserved almost
100,000 varieties of rice based on knowledge of their properties, or the
communities of the Andean highlands have developed thousands of varieties of
potato, or those in Mexico several thousand varieties of maize, then it is
because there is a strong empirical basis to this endeavour.

Policy disconnect

But governments and policymakers, even in developing countries that are
home to indigenous scientific expertise, accept only Western-style science as
the basis of evidence-based policymaking.

A colonial past has nurtured a 'look West' elite who take their Western
inclinations into policy formulation. The education,
lifestyle and ignorance of these leaders, even their rejection of indigenous
traditions, have a cost for countries that confine their ability to solve
problems to Western science.

It is in the global community's interest to examine all available forms of
scientific knowledge and expertise. It is myopic to rely on just one approach
when several are available.

Developing countries, in particular, do themselves a great disservice by
neglecting the problem-solving and enriching potential of their own traditions
of science, which are locally valid and accepted.

Despite India having a vast repertoire of indigenous medicine, its healthcare
system is based on Western-style medicine, which is expensive and difficult to
take into remote villages. The logical approach would be to rely largely on
indigenous medicine and include the Western system where needed. After years of
neglect for traditional medicine, this is finally beginning to happen, with
efforts to include it in healthcare systems.

China has charted a different course, with the government supporting the
development of both Western and traditional medicine in its healthcare system
through research on what is called 'integrative medicine'. [3]

Why should systems of science be standardised, and why should academics and
policymakers demand this? A scientific system's validity lies not in its being
credible everywhere, but in its being credible in the culture where it was
developed and where it has provided solutions.

Countries that are repositories of indigenous scientific expertise should make
this mainstream. Investing adequate resources in indigenous science and
expanding the base of education and training in traditional knowledge systems
will help to neutralise the bias against them and assist their inclusion in
official policy.

People and governments have to move away from the narrow thinking that the
Western style of science is the only science there is.

Suman Sahai is founder and chair of Gene
Campaign, an organisation dedicated to the conservation of genetic resources
and indigenous knowledge, and to working towards ensuring food, nutrition and
livelihood security for rural and tribal communities. She can be contacted at mail@genecampaign.org

About Me

Dr. Suman Sahai, who has had a distinguished scientific career in the field of genetics, is a recipient of the Padma Shri,the Borlaug Award, Outstanding Woman Achiever awards, the BirbalSahni Gold Medal and the Order of the Golden Ark .
Dr. Sahai is founder Chairperson of the Gene Campaign which is a leading research and advocacy organization, working on issues relating to food, nutrition and livelihoods. She has published extensively on science and policy issues and is a member of several national policy forums on scientific research and education, biodiversity and environment, biotechnology and bioethics as well as intellectual property rights.
Dr Sahai chaired India’s Planning Commission Task Force on ‘Agro biodiversity and Genetically Engineered Organisms’, for the XIth Plan. She was a member of the Steering Committee of the National Biodiversity Board , the Expert Committee on Biotechnology Policy and the Bioethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research.She has served on the Research Advisory Committees of national scientific institutions.
Dr Sahai can be reached at www.genecampaign.org and mail@genecampaign.org